In his final address to the United Nations on Tuesday, it seems President Obama could not give up the chance to offer another dire warning against GOP nominee Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
“Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” Obama said to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.
It was a subtle, yet obvious reference to Trump’s most controversial campaign proposal. The president appeared to use it to make his larger point that we cannot reject global integration. […]
The integration of a global economy has made life better for billions of people, he continued, noting that the level of poverty worldwide has been drastically cut.

While speaking negatively about the U.S. 11 times he in addition is berating Trump for the wall to keep mexicans from jumping the border for free goodies while giving $75 million to mexico to help build their wall to keep people out of their nation on their southern border.

I guess that it’s just me but I don’t get it. How could ANYONE not believe that a country should protect it’s borders? How could anyone not believe that a country should restrict to some degree who comes into it? I’m just shocked that democrats have the stance they do.

I guess that it’s just me but I don’t get it. How could ANYONE not believe that a country should protect it’s borders? How could anyone not believe that a country should restrict to some degree who comes into it? I’m just shocked that democrats have the stance they do.

This is not the first time obama as done things like this. He has in the past given money to drill oil in other nations.

If you want to stop them, you have to address their incentive for coming.

You want to stop it? Fine. Assess severe punishment for any American or legal immigrant who hires an illegal invader–enough to close their business down completely. No jobs? No illegals–unless, of course, they aren’t coming here to work after all, but are coming here to get in on the Democrats’ gravy train as many of us have said all along.

You want to stop it? Fine. Assess severe punishment for any American or legal immigrant who hires an illegal invader–enough to close their business down completely. No jobs? No illegals–unless, of course, they aren’t coming here to work after all, but are coming here to get in on the Democrats’ gravy train as many of us have said all along.

That is the problem we do not enforce the laws on the books and if we catch an illegal we release them then lie about deporting them.

You want to stop it? Fine. Assess severe punishment for any American or legal immigrant who hires an illegal invader–enough to close their business down completely.

You’d need a police state to enforce it, and get the American public on your side, all while experiencing a spike in consumer goods & service prices, and people being put through TSA shenanigans just for their daily commute.

Since this did not work in Alabama, there’s no reason to think it would work nationally.

Punishing people for supporting their livelihoods is not the answer Dave. Farmers have been using this labor LONG before our current laws were on the books.

Just do the reasonable thing, and give them back the legal access they had before. There was no reason to take it from them to begin with.

I repeat, there was no reason to take legal access away, it was just stupid politicians, being stupid.

Prohibitive policies only work when you have consensus with the population;efficacy.

If you’re resorting to punishing the people who hire immigrants, paying no attention to why they were hiring them in the first place, it makes it clear that efficacy isn’t a concern, and that you’re basically dooming the law to failure.

You’re setting enforcement agencies against the everyday economy most Americans use. That’s never going to go over well. It antagonizes not only people who find it neccesary to work with illegals, but even people who couldn’t care less about them; they just care why you’re forcing them through TSA-like shenanigans for their daily commute. And they aren’t going to buy your reasoning.

You’ll just get more passive-aggressive resistance, like people do at checkpoints right now.

Resistance the law wouldn’t get, if it acknowledged economic trends, and incorporated their needs, instead of trying to fight them. A fight it should have never engaged in to begin with. There wasn’t a point. You don’t need to fight the economy to secure the border. Eisenhower proved that.